Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—N.D. Cal.: Wal-Mart wins dispute over oil change reminder stickers, (Oct 29, 2014)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

In a putative class action by a consumer against retailer Wal-Mart, the federal district court in Oakland, California, has granted summary judgment to the retailer in relation to alleged misleading oil change adhesive windshield stickers that caused the consumer to change her car’s oil more frequently than the manufacturer’s recommendation (Krouch v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., October 28, 2014, Rogers, Y.).

Gnanh Krouch purchased a Toyota Camry in 2009 and received an owner’s manual which recommended that the car’s oil be changed every 5,000 miles or six months. After the car’s dashboard maintenance lights came on, Krouch purchased an oil change from a Wal-Mart automotive service center instead of from a dealership. A Wal-Mart adhesive windshield sticker stated that the car’s next oil change was due within 3,000 miles or three months.

Krouch filed a putative class action against Wal-Mart, alleging violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and False Advertising Law (FAL). Krouch asserted that the oil change reminder stickers were misleading and caused her to change her car’s oil more frequently than the manufacturer’s recommendation. Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all claims.

Damages. The court found that no reasonable finder of fact could conclude that Krouch suffered an injury in fact—the loss of money or property—as a result of Wal-Mart’s windshield stickers stating that oil changes were due within 3,000 miles or three months. The only evidence Krouch relied upon to show economic loss was the recommended schedule set forth in her owner’s manual. Krouch’s argument that she purchased excess oil changes was rejected by the court since, from 2009 to 2012, Krouch purchased oil changes from Wal-Mart, on average, every 5,700 miles, which was fewer oil changes than was recommended for her vehicle. Krouch also continued to purchase oil changes from Wal-Mart after the filing of her lawsuit. Thus, her claim of economic injury was lacking, the court noted.

Moreover, the report by the plaintiff’s expert was ruled inadmissible as evidence considered on summary judgment, based on unfounded and contradicted assumptions. The expert had opined that the plaintiff was injured by having purchased, on average, 3.4 oil changes per year when she supposedly needed only two per year based on manufacturer recommendations. According to the court, the expert based his opinion on the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which lacked factual foundation, and on an unreasonable interpretation of the car’s owner’s manual. Furthermore, the expert had no specialized knowledge to base an opinion.

Causation. There was no genuine issue for trial regarding the plaintiff’s claim that Wal-Mart’s window stickers caused her injury by leading her to obtain unnecessary oil changes. The only evidence Krouch offered was uncorroborated and self-serving testimony. On several occasions before and after she filed the suit against Wal-Mart, Krouch obtained oil changes from Wal-Mart before reaching the 5,000 mile manufacturer service recommendation. Her ongoing conduct was critical and generally undercut her claim that Wal-Mart’s representations were material to her decisions to obtain oil changes prematurely, the court concluded.

The case is No. 12-cv-02217-YGR.

Attorneys: James Robert Noblin (Green and Noblin PC) for Gnanh Nora Krouch. Robert James Herrington (Greenberg Traurig LLP) for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Companies: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Cases: StateUnfairTradePractices CaliforniaNews